Ranked verdict queue for a project (score desc, FIFO tie-break).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"project_id": "<project_id>"
},
"name": "verdict_queue"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the ranking order (score desc, FIFO tie-break), which is useful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication or permissions are required, or how pagination works.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single tightly written sentence with no wasted words. The ordering rule is included immediately, and the scope is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a verdict queue item contains, whether results are paginated, or what an empty queue means, leaving the agent to infer important behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single project_id parameter. It only implies that the queue is scoped 'for a project' and does not explain the expected format or any constraints on project_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource (verdict queue) and narrows it to a project, with ordering semantics. It is clear enough to distinguish from verdict_submit, but it does not explicitly say 'list' or 'get' and does not directly name sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verdict_submit or review_record. The ordering details imply it retrieves a queue, but no explicit usage conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.